SITLA’s squeeze play...
Mar 23, 2017 | 1091 views | 0 0 comments | 114 114 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Definition of a “squeeze play”:

1. In baseball: A play in which the batter attempts to bunt so that a runner on third base may score.

2. Informal pressure exerted to obtain a concession or achieve a goal.

In the economic game between the state School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA)/Lionsback/Utah State University and the city of Moab, the second definition is status quo for these projects.

In the audio transcripts of the Jan. 19 SITLA board meeting, and judging by the comment of a board member, who said: “Developing in Moab is like pulling teeth” (met with laughter), they hold an adversarial opinion of our community. The Lionsback development has been well documented in the past few months. Recently, there has been a change in language regarding the size of the hotel, changing wording from 50 'units' to 50 three-bedroom units. SITLA believes Moab “really needs this kind of activity center. We think we can convince them.”

Further along in the transcript, the board members discuss a request from Moab for a $250,000 capital investment to begin a roughly $4 million road improvement project for the proposed USU-Moab campus. “Is this the same Moab Utah that we’re finding problems with?” a board member asked (more laughter).

In discussing the road improvement participation and right before suspending interactions between board members and the director to take this subject into a closed session, other comments were made. Those included: “With the political climate of Moab, do we have a reliable partner in Moab?” “ Do we have a better chance of getting a partner before we’ve written a check or after we’ve written a check?” “I’m ready to play hardball.”

SITLA can profit generously in these projects even though the Lionsback project’s offsite costs (bringing utilities to the project, sewer connections, road improvements, etc.) have more than doubled since it was first approved in 2009, thus the developer needs triple density.

SITLA has 240 acres bordering the prospective USU campus that can command top dollar from developers for high-density housing. How much of these monies wind up in Moab? Let’s publish those numbers (cost to Moab versus income to schools).

Pesky Moab is a stumbling block to SITLA. They would like to exert informal pressure to have their way with us, not go through the public process on any of their projects. Are we going to allow continuous squeeze plays?

Let’s stand up to outside developers and the State of Utah. Urge the city council to rescind the ruling that stopped Lionsback from going back to the public process. Find out just how many people could populate the resort, casitas and homes?

The USU campus is a huge can of worms. Let’s look at ALL aspects of it. It might not be the golden goose.

Moab is neither a commodity nor a joke.

—Carol Mayer


Copyright 2013 The Times-Independent. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

report abuse...

Express yourself:

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.